On the one hand, Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" series has given TV producers David Benioff and D.B. Weiss a rich world, juicy storylines, and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of amazing characters. It's hard to believe, for instance, watching the new season — it begins on Sunday night at 9 — that Gwendoline Christie's amazonian Brienne of Tarth hasn't been around since day one, so indelible has she become. Again and again, Benioff and Weiss seem to find the perfect actor for each role, this year adding, among others, Dame Diana Rigg as Lady Olenna Redwyne (sort of the Dowager Countess from “Downton Abbey” if she were a wartime consiglieri) and Ciaran Hinds as Mance Rayder (pragmatic king of the wild people who live north of the show’s fictional kingdom of Westeros).

On the other, there is just so much going on in the books(*), and that’s necessary to telling the story coherently on television, that Benioff and Weiss at times seem like Lucy and Ethel trying to keep up with the chocolates on the conveyer belt. We bounce from locale to locale, character to character, just trying to keep the story moving: five minutes with clever imp Tyrion Lanister (Peter Dinklage) angling to secure his position in a family that despises him, then five minutes with naïve soldier Jon Snow (Kit Harrington) as he embeds himself in Mance’s camp, then five across the sea where Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) is amassing an army to take back the throne of Westeros that once belonged to her family.

(*) It's at this point that I should include my usual disclaimer about this series: I have not read Martin's books, nor do I intend to at least until "Game of Thrones" is over. If I'd already read them before the show began, that'd be fine. But since I hadn't, I want to see if the show can make sense and work for a viewer who's never turned a single page of Martin's prose. If knowledge of the books is a prerequisite for fully appreciating the TV show, then Benioff and Weiss have failed as storytellers.

Many past and present HBO dramas have employed a similarly fragmented narrative style, but it feels like “Game of Thrones” takes this to an extreme. On “The Wire,” for instance, characters frequently crossed paths, and when they didn’t, you could tell how one person’s actions were affecting someone else far away. On “Boardwalk Empire,” the narrative strands don’t always seem clearly tied together at first, but they inevitably come together in satisfying fashion by season’s end.

Both Martin and “Game of Thrones” are playing a longer game than that. There are characters like Daenerys and Jon Snow who are thousands of miles away from the central action in the Westeros capital of King’s Landing, and their stories seem like they’ll take a long while before directly impacting what Tyrion and his nasty relatives are up to. Several characters spent all of last season seemingly just traveling from Point A to Point B on a map. It’s all very clearly leading somewhere, but in many ways “Game of Thrones” requires more patience than its predecessors, and the fractured storytelling makes it harder to invest in what’s happening on the way to the big payoffs. We’re very rarely in any locale, with any group of characters, long enough for each story to have the emotional resonance that the material deserves.

I had accepted this brand of storytelling as the cost of doing business — as the only way Benioff and Weiss could reasonably adapt the books and allow me to get to know great characters like Tyrion, brave warrior girl Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) or repulsive boy king Joffrey (Jack Gleeson). But then the show gave us “Blackwater,” the penultimate episode of the second season, and my entire perspective on what “Game of Thrones” could be — and what it wasn’t most of the time — changed.

That episode was notable for two differences from the norm. First, where the show had generally avoided showing long battle sequences to save both money and time, “Blackwater” gave us extended, thrilling action on both sea and land. Second — and more importantly — it dropped any pretense of trying to provide a comprehensive view of this world for one week. Any character who wasn’t in King’s Landing for the battle was ignored, which gave us more time to see how each person there was reacting to events, and for all of the stories to be felt much more deeply than with the tour guide approach the series had previously taken.

Suddenly, a host of possibilities presented themselves. Instead of simply telling the events of the books in something resembling chronological order, being sure to check in with as many characters each week as possible, it seemed like “Game of Thrones” had found a way to adapt Martin’s stories for television in a way that would better suit the new medium, even as it was being faithful to the characters and world.

Rather than parcel out fairly thin Daenerys and Jon Snow stories over the course of a season, the show could perhaps concentrate both of them into a single episode, where the full journey in one night would have more impact than the handful of steps we were getting weekly. It wouldn’t be practical to do this in every episode, or for every character, but periodically going for depth over breadth seemed a wise idea, even if it meant departing from the text even more substantially than Benioff and Weiss already had. (The series has introduced several new characters and at times added story arcs that didn’t exist in the books.)

The first four episodes of season 3, however, tell stories pretty much the way the show always has, for good and for ill. Some characters have more interesting stories this year than they did last. (Rather than whine about her stolen dragons, Daenerys becomes a more active, assertive figure, even if she’s still an ocean away.) Others take a step back. (Alfie Allen’s Theon Greyjoy was one of the emotional centerpieces of season 2; his appearances in the early going here are easily the most confounding part of the new season.) And for the most part, each story is presented one tiny morsel at a time. Some of the characters and performances (Tyrion, for instance) are rich enough that they make you feel something even when they appear briefly; others (Richard Madden as the drippy King in the North, Robb Stark) need far more concentration than they get to be as compelling as the show needs them to be.

There are, as usual, amazing moments, like spymaster Varys (Conleth Hill) telling Tyrion the story of how he became a eunuch, or Daenerys being introduced to an army of slaves who’ve had their individuality systematically stripped away, or Brienne getting into a duel with her captive, Jaime Lannister (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). The major new characters instantly feel as if they’ve always been there, and previously minor ones step impressively to the fore, like Natalie Dormer as Joffrey’s canny fiancée Margaery.

On a press conference call yesterday, Benioff said that it simply isn't practical to do a "Blackwater"-style episode focusing on fewer characters more than once a season. There are too many stories and too many characters to keep track of over the course of 10 hours (which is the most they say they can realistically produce per year), and this is the only realistic way to do it.

For the most part, Benioff and Weiss have earned the trust of fans of the books and/or show. They're there in the trenches, trying to adapt this unadaptable series of books. If they say this is how it has to be done, they're probably right. And made this way, “Game of Thrones” remains a very entertaining series set in a very rich world. But the longer it’s on, the more it feels like Benioff and Weiss are only scratching the surface of that world — even if that may be the only way to coherently explore it.

NOTE: As discussed above, this isn't a place for talking about things in the books that have yet to be part of the TV show. The usual disclaimer applies: we're going to keep the book/spoiler issue as simple as possible. We are here to discuss "Game of Thrones" AS A TV SHOW, NOT AS AN ENDLESS SERIES OF COMPARISONS TO THE BOOKS. I talked about the books in this review primarily to illustrate the structural problem they create for the TV show, but if you start discussing – or even strongly alluding to — plot points, character motivations, etc., from the books that have yet to be part of the TV show, your comment will be deleted. If you see something that I haven't already removed, please feel free to email me.

Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

maybe i am just stupid but i always wait until the week before the finale to watch the season. the show is just too confusing to watch 1 episode a week, i forget what happens since there are so many characters.

This would be a great show to adopt the House of Cards model and dump all the episodes out at once. HBO has On Demand and HBO Go, and it doesn't seem like they care much about ratings anyway, so why not?

Connor: Because people have already stopped talking about "House Of Cards". Continual buzz is key here, not just ratings. Plus, HBO will lose money if people decided to sign up for 1 week rather than three months, if they only subscribe for GOT.

I loved Blackwater, too, but I think I prefer the "see it all" method of storytelling as the dominant approach. While Benioff and Weiss mentioned in yesterday's piece that they don't think about this show in terms of episode to episode themes, I think it's pretty clear that the individual episodes do often illustrate common themes across the realm, and do so in compelling fashion. This may just be a product of the source material addressing themes chronologically as well.

The 10-12 episode a year cable model also would make something like putting the whole Dany or Jon story in one episode a little insane on viewers. Although they do only get that much total screen time--I read an article showing that Peter Dinklage was the only cast member on screen for more than 60 minutes last season--I can't imagine exacerbating that long wait even further. Tune in 51 weeks from now to see if Jon kisses her or not!

The Blackwater episode worked because a number of the show's characters are concentrated in King's Landing, and because their stories were threaded through the rest of the season setting it up. If they spent a whole episode in the North, not only do they have the problem you mention of it being a year before we see Jon Snow again, there would also only be Jon and his few supporting characters to focus on, and no build up to it.

I don't think that anyone would say that the show needs to be that concentrated though, just that the more concentrated the better and that often at times last year the show's quality suffered because of the number of people and places they were servicing in each episode.

If, for instance, one episode just had, say, what was going on in the North and what was going on with Danerys, sort of a "What's going on in the world besides Westeros" thing then that would be better than an episode with scenes with Jon and Danerys and Arya and Jaime and Brienne and Salami and Coolidge and Kelly and Dylan and on and on.

Andy Greenwald over at Grantland made a good point in his review yesterday that perhaps GoT would be better suited for a House of Cards style of release. It does seem like a series that would be more awesome if viewed in large chunks rather than having to wait a week and then try to figure out "oh, that's what's her face and what's his name." What do you think, Alan?

I think that's true, but I think that you could make a compelling case for that being true about any heavily serialized drama. The Wire and Treme, for instance, work a billion times better in chunks than episode by episode.

Anyone who wants to view it as a whole can record the eps and watch them all at the end of the season, wait for the season to be on DVD and watch then, or watch them all at the end of the season on OnDemand or HBOGo. I prefer to watch them weekly, read Alan's review and others' comments, then rewatch a couple days later, often with CC on, to pick up details I missed the first time.See how that works? Something for everyone!

Great review, Alan. Without getting into any spoilers, you should probably know that the Blackwater sequence in the novels was much like that in the show - including narrowing its focus to the events in Kings Landing for a number of chapters. For better or for worse, the showrunners are following the rhythms of Martin's books as well as their content. The difference is that the novels never force you to wait a week between chapters (though they do force you to wait five years between installments). Win some, lose some!

I do think Andy Greenwald is right and the show is, by design, more like a 70 or 80 hour movie produced in installments, than like what we've known as a conventional weekly TV drama, or even an unconventional, more novelistic drama like the Wire or Boardwalk. And it is better viewed in large chunks than an episode at a time. If nothing else, by the time it's done I think it will be viewed as an amazing experiment to test the limits of the medium. But since I'm someone who roared through Martin's novels in something like two weeks, I guess I like my entertainment immersive and oversized.

I think it would actually be fantastic if someone eventually cut the theme and the credits and just edited the whole show into one single cut. A glorious 70 hour film to be watched during a whole week with very few pauses.

I'm hoping that all of these character arcs will come together down the road. If they do, and especially if it is satisfying and a bit surprising, the this show will be one of the greatest of all time. If not... Lost anybody?

Alan, if you don't mind [and maybe I missed it somewhere] how many episodes did HBO give you to review?

I read an interview with Martin (I'm not a book reader, the interview had to do with the show) where he basically said he hated the ending of Lost and would make sure the ending to GOT was not as dissapointing.

Since I share Martin's feeling towards the Lost finale (and how it retroactively, negatively effected the entire series IMO) this was a good sign that the ending to GOT will be satisfying.

your complaint about the structure of the series reads like an impatient child. in order for the major moments (ned dieing, blackwater, more to come) to make a legitimate emotional impact it is necessary to build up each character and each story. be patient, the best is yet to come.

It's not about wanting them to rush to the destination. It's about the journey feeling so diluted because of the way it's presented within the time allowed.

A commenter earlier in the week said that the Jon Snow material in book 2 was more satisfying because the book had the space to build up the relationship between Jon and Halfhand so that it meant something when Jon killed the guy. The show doesn't have the unlimited time and space that Martin does, but perhaps seeing the bulk of the Jon/Halfhand scenes together would have created that illusion of closeness that was so lacking in the way they presented it.

Those of us who are both fans of the show and the books get where you're coming from, but the reality is that not only would the producers have had to show more scenes between Jon Snow and Halfhand, they'd have to backfill even more of Halfhand's story. But he was a means to and end for the story -- to get Jon to Mance -- as opposed to a really pivotal character. It's the story between Jon and Ygritte that will have the true emotional punch, and they gave (and seem to give in Season 3) that in spades.There's sooooo much they have to cut, not just from the third book but the subsequent ones that unless it's a battle scene they're going to have to cut so much out.It remains to be seen if they cut too much, even with them assigning arcs from minor characters to some of the major players. For example, you alluded to Sansa's story in the first part of the season. They cut out a heretofore minor character and assigned his story to Littlefinger. It may change the nature of Sansa's arc, so we'll see how that goes.

It's not just patience, it's also feeling the sense of time and journey with the characters. If Dany is going to start off on a boat leaving Qarth, stop somewhere to see the faceless army, and then continue on to Westeros and start a war, it makes sense to follow along with her over 10 weeks, rather than cram a year of her life into one episode.

Imagine if Dany's story from the first season was crammed into one episode. We'd be "checking in" on major moments in her life - being sold to Drogo, eventually falling in love, her brother dying, losing the baby, losing Drogo - without any time in between to let the emotion of each scene sink in.

Martin created a great concept but he's not a great writer. It's better to have the limitation of the show. Dostoevsky, or even Tolkien, he is not. Let the show runners make an exciting, fun TV show. It's better. Have I broken a rule? But it seems to be part of the logic of the review that there is too much in the books to relate in the TV show. I'm agreeing in a way. But, I would just suggest that we are all better off with the show's contraints - as long as they can keep figuring out what's necessary and how to make it fun.

Alan, As an FYI, the Blackwater chapters in "A Clash of Kings" were consecutive and while not completely linear chronologically because they were occurring simultaneously, they were not interrupted by non-Kings Landing centric chapters. So, while it may seem like a deviation from the narrative style of the books and show generally, it was consistent with the book on which it was based.

I know we're not supposed to reference the books but, the tv show mirrors the same storytelling in the books so, that's why we bounce from character to character in the books which are even more complex. I know watching a TV series this might be difficult to follow for some but, I really think GOT has a done a wonderful time making each story and character interesting. Literally one of my favorite shows because there is so much going on.

Well it's good to see it'll be another season of this blog where Alan saying "Don't talk about the books" will prove to be a dense and impenetrable riddle to some posters. What could it mean, they wonder? Does it mean I can talk about the books if I think I'm not spoiling anything? Does it mean I can talk about what doesn't happen in the books? What if I talk about the Books but refer to the characters as Mr. X and Mrs. Y?

Anyways, I was less impressed than Alan was with season 2(or, rather, I felt the long journey of season 2 was less redeemed by the deus ex machinapalooza of Blackwater than he did). There's enough in the show that I'm willing to stick around but I think Alan is fundamentally right when he says that the way the show jumps from character to character hurts those of us who are trying to build connections to these characters entirely based on the show. When we see Danerys after two episodes not seeing her and we get little five minute chunks of her yelling about her dragons...it's just hard to get involved with that kind of story telling.

Still, I'm in. There's enough great performances, locations and nudity here to keep me around for season 3 of The Increasingly Poor Decisions of The Stark Family.

I'd love to see you explain how the Battle of Blackwater, which was clearly being built to all season, was full of Deus ex machina. The only thing that I could see is Tywin's arrival, which A) does not constitute a "palooza," and B) was not a Deus ex machina, because it was set up in previous episodes by Littlefinger's maneuvering to form a Lannister-Tyrell alliance. So it didn't come out of nowhere.

That reminds me of noted TV critic Bill Simmons writing a column (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100407&sportCat=nba) with spoilers from Lost that tried the "Character X, Character Y" routine. Never mind that anyone with half a brain would be able to figure everything out right away.

1. No, I don't think it would. I think the more immersed you get in any one particular story the more it will last with you.

2. Even if you're right I think that just speaks to another fair criticism of the show, namely that they're just trying to cram way too many characters, places and events into the relatively short time they have. If the only choices are tiny scenes with regularity or one or two appearances a year then, you're right, neither way is a particularly compelling way to feature a character or story.

STOP TALKING ABOUT, OR EVEN HINTING AT, THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN UPCOMING BOOKS.

You may think you're being clever and oblique and not giving things away. You are wrong. Many comments have already been deleted. They will continue to be deleted. After a certain points, I may just shut down commenting altogether for this show.

Seriously, everybody...there are TONS of Game of Throes message boards out there for book readers to discuss the show. Try Winteriscoming.com, for instance. The upcoming events that those of us who have read the books know are coming will lose ALL of their meaning and impact if we are hinting at them beforehand. Let non-readers experience the same way we did...I can't wait to see their reactions. :-)

What if it's done in the same way you wrote about the books in your review? Just comparing the structure of the books vs the show... Like some of the comments I've seen that haven't been deleted (yet?) that say something along the lines of "in the books, a character is given their own chapter which adds more focus, contrasted with the show's more 'drop in for 5 minutes' approach" ? Just wondering if the books can be mentioned in this incredibly non-specific fashion or if it should be avoided all together ?

Agreed with Andy Greenwald about the benefits of releasing the episodes in a similar manner to "House of Cards" on Netflix, but could the rumored "Arrested Development" model be an even better fit for GOT? All the episodes released at once, and each one from a difference characters perspective or in this case a different geographic part of the GOT world?

Discussing this subject is mostly pointless. It will never happen for Game of Thrones, so what difference does it make? Framing an alternate method of watching the show as superior just makes the only way we'll ever actually see the show seem inferior.

Of course it's pointless. I'm a big fan the series both in book and television form, not really trying make anything seem inferior. It's just fun thinking about the different ways a series could be presented to tell the same story.

Interesting that many people think Blackwater was one of the best episodes. The screenplay for the episode was actually written by GRRM. He does have a background as a television screenwriter. In some sense he may be best at adapting his own material.

Like Treme, Boardwalk Empire, Deadwood, and (of course) The Wire, Game of Thrones doesn't really benefit from being reviewed on a weekly basis. Then again, this was a review for the first four episodes of the season, and all I got out of this write-up was that Alan has a hard time connecting the dots. Like in those other shows, everything is connected here, even if it is just tangential, and doesn't seem that it will connect with any of those other dots for the foreseeable future.

More than man other shows, what's come before is absolutely integral to what's happening 'now'. I personally feel that, even with just five to ten minutes per episode, nearly every major (and some minor) character/s has been developed extraordinarily well. Part of that is because I'm an invested viewer, and the other part may be my familiarity with watching complex, heavily serialized television. I suspect the fact that I'm an avid reader has more to do with it. Keep in mind, I've not yet read this particular series, although I plan to when the show is finished (like Alan).

Compare Robb Stark to any character on The Walking Dead, and the disparity in the quality of the writing and acting is apparent. And Robb is a character I'd consider as a supporting cast member, for the most part. The changes in his character have followed a path from the first episode of the show to the end of the second season, and I found it all very well done and somewhat easy to follow.

Perhaps I just don't find this whole thing as complicated as it is made out to be because I'm easily able to keep track of these characters, and can recall how they're all connected to one another in the grand scheme of things. But even if I were having trouble with that aspect, it'd still be hard to deny the excellent acting, the amazing locations and sets, the authentic costuming and details, and the more-often-than-not great writing. I'm appreciating both the forest and the trees, I guess. Part of me wonders if the fact that this is a fantasy world plays some part in Alan's difficulty in keeping all of this straight. The series Rome was much less clear with its narrative presentation, and yet audiences were still able to follow it because of the fact that they were (at least somewhat) knowledgeable about these events that actually took place.

In any case, I'm excited for the show to be back. There isn't anything quite like it on television. I don't disagree that this is a show best enjoyed in blocks, but that opportunity avails itself at the end of every season, and I most prefer to watch it weekly, even if it is frustrating in the interim. For me, House of Cards was a failed experiment on both fronts - the release format, and the show itself (which I enjoyed, but have largely forgot about, and was never completely enthralled with to begin - even with its much smaller cast, the writers failed to create any likeable, relateable characters beyond Russo and [at points] Doug) were ultimately forgettable and uninspired (although HoC could be beautifully shot at times).

If I were making a list of the best shows on television, there's no doubt that this would be very hear the top. I feel that it's asemotionally complex as anything else on television in many ways, and certainly more ambitious. I love my Mad Men, and Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire, and Southland, and Justified, and Treme, and a number of other shows - but none of them excite me, or draw me into their world in the same way as GoT, so that's reason enough for me to enjoy the hell out of it.

I don't anyone is taking issue with the structure because it's "too complicated" or that it makes it difficult for us to remember characters. Just that it's not a good way to build up investment and attachment to characters and their respective stories suffer as a result.

And a shoutout to Southland (because I don't know where else to put it) which is having a stellar season - and had an incredible episode last night with perhaps the greatest scene the show has done: a tour de force between Gerald McRaney and Michael Cudlitz. It's a pity Alan isn't reviewing it weekly - IMO, it's a tossup at the moment whether it's actually surpassed Justified this year.

The other advantage Blackwater had is that it came at the end of the season, so it could depict its subject matter pretty much up to the end of its chronology for this season. They couldn't really do this from every position though -- if they told the complete story of series 3 for a few characters in episode 1, than some more in episode 2, etc. the overall timeline would become extremely confusing. I suppose it might work for those characters who have no contact at all with others but even there sometimes there need to be references to events happening far away.

I know that you enjoy the show Alan and agree with your review wholeheartedly. The show is great but there is a certain amount of plate-spinning involved. The trick of these guys is to keep that function (keeping up with everyone) as much as possible without giving off that effect (bits and pieces, here and there). I'm sure they'll do at least a pretty good job.

The show would almost function better as 3 or so separate series under one franchise umbrella with the occasional convergence episodes that mixed them.

(Minor book knowledge used in this post, but only to place new characters; shouldn't be anything not in the episodes Alan's seen)

The issue is that there are too many characters in too many places for a consistent Blackwater approach to work. Especially now, as they keep coming. Let's think about it!

People in the North:Jon Snow, Ygritte, Mance, and the WildlingsThe Night's WatchBran/Osha/Hodor/the ReedsTheon GreyjoyYara Greyjoy (?)

Dany Across the Narrow SeaDany, Mormont, the Dothraki, Dragons, etc

The South (not in King's Landing)Robb/Catelyn/TalisaAryaBrienne/JaimeStannis/MelisandreBalon Greyjoy

People in King's Landing (where like six plots are happening at any given time):Varys, Littlefinger, Tyrion, Cersei, Tywin, Loras, Margaery, Olenna Redwyne-Tyrell, Sansa, Bronn, various small players

Let's say there's just a single King's Landing thread to every episode, and we spend some time every episode there because that's where the most characters are. There are still something like 9 other plots, depending on how much we're focusing on various Greyjoys who are still alive and were introduced to be semi-major parts of a major arc last year. So even if we do like 15 minutes of King's Landing and 15 minutes on 3 other plots to concentrate things, that means we're going to end up with 2 episodes between each visit to the non-King's Landing plots.

I agree that the lack of focus is somewhat detrimental, but I think increasing focus creates new, different problems that would be slightly more problematic.

Cutting some of the more far flung plots and making like 2 hour companion movies is the only way to solve things that I can think of, and sometimes (more in the first season, admittedly), those plots are highly intertwined with the stuff in King's Landing. Ned Stark's fall is somewhat precipitated by his refusal to endorse the assassination of Dany, for example. Conversely, that assassination attempt is a key moment of growth for her, but more so for Mormont.

I'm not sure how to resolve this, and I'm sure it is the major issue for Benioff and Weiss as they try to adapt it.

I agree. This isn't Lost. It can't just focus on one or two characters to work. "Blackwater" is sort of a unique case (the antepenultimate episode was ridiculously challenging as a setup episode, as it simultaneously had to set up all the plots for "Blackwater" *and* all the remaining plots for the series finale), and I can't imagine we're going to get another episode like that for a *long* time. This is the way the show handles storytelling, and I think that this is the best of all the possible options. It might not be perfect, but I think the alternative would be worse.

Under People in King's Landing, you forgot the evil Joffrey, who is connected to many of the plots in that locale.I agree that trying to use a more Lost-like structure would cause different problems. Also, Lost had a 22-episode season, so there was time for all the characters to appear more often.I enjoy the show as it's presented and don't spend a lot of time on how I'd like it to change it if I were in charge.

There's been a lot of talk about Thrones being better as binge-watched instead of waiting a week between episodes. I actually think there is truth to that, though to people with better knowledge/recollection of the show it's not as difficult.

However, as the manager of my own enjoyment department I think I will take the initiative and carry this out in some form. It will be hard to not watch them the day or day after they are out but I think I'll end up waiting 2-3 weeks at a time and mini-binge-watch a chunk of them at a time.

I'd say binge-watching is generally a more favorable experience for all television shows.

Lost and Breaking Bad are two of the few shows that come to mind where a week-long gap has been beneficial, and that's because it's just so much fun to mull them over, discuss them with friends, and try to predict what will happen.

I suppose the same may be true for Game of Thrones, but as a book reader, there is far less need for speculation and anticipation from week to week; my anticipation mostly comes from wanting to see non-book-reading friends react to things I know are coming up.

Ugh, I love reading the comments on your reviews, Alan, but I had to stop halfway through for this one. I don't understand how people continue to think they can comment on the books.

Anyway, I wanted to get your thoughts on something. I recently rewatched seasons 1 & 2 (yay HBO Go) and found the experience much more satisfying, a la The Wire. I didn't realize just how much worldbuilding and lore I was missing on the first watch (naturally), so it was incredible to see just how much detail was in there. Like the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch being Jorah Mormont's father. What?! It may have been more obvious to other people, but I certainly didn't connect the names or realize Jorah and Mormont the elder were talking about each other in various episodes.

So, Alan, what's your take on shows that almost require a second viewing? On one hand, I want to say a show should be capable of delivering the story with one viewing. People don't necessarily have the time to rewatch a show, after all. In this case, as with The Wire, I didn't feel like I missed out, but rather I found extra material to enjoy.

I plan on watching this season with a CLOSE eye to see if I can pick up all the things I used to miss. But I might have to wait a few days after you've had a chance to clean up the comments before I read your review. I heard this season will be the biggest yet in terms of story-telling, so I'm really paranoid about spoilers.

And if you need DVD/Blu-Ray special features to fully appreciate the show, then Benioff and Weiss aren't doing their jobs. The show has to be able to function on its own, just as Lost had to be able to (and YMMV on how well it did or not), The Walking Dead (ditto), etc.

I agree that this series given the intricacy of having so many connected elements can give a rich repeated viewing. But as Alan says, stories delivered through a medium should be self-sufficient and not depend on any outside material. At the same time they can't dumb things down too much...it's certainly a challenge.

The show does function on its own. I never got lost during the first season (before I read any of the books), and I know several non-readers who didn't get lost in the second season. That said, I think a viewer will have a *better* experience if he or she has read the books. But that doesn't mean the show doesn't work without that well of knowledge to draw upon.

I haven't seen the supplementary materials from the DVDs and I don't intend to (I don't buy them because HBO's entire library is available online).

I agree with DBMURPH22 that GoT is good for repeated viewing. My question is: do you think a show should be totally accessible on the first viewing? For someone who hasn't read the books, there is a LOT to soak up.

For example, I didn't even understand most of the religion stuff from watching the show the first time around. After the second, it made much more sense (since I watched it with the knowledge of two seasons worth of mentions of old gods, new gods, and the fire god). That could be simply because I'm a bit dim, but I think a lot of non-book readers would agree that it is easy to miss out on the intricacies of this world when you're watching for the first time and trying to enjoy the story.

Then again, in GoT's case, I don't think the details or deep background was necessary for my enjoyment the first time around. I enjoyed it before I understood everything, then I enjoyed it more when I did. I'm curious if anyone disagrees and thinks the full experience should be available the first time.

There's a certain enjoyment to watching something you've read come to life. But as a reader of part of Book 1 I've had a more real sense of enjoyemnt when not knowing what comes next such as happens in a real story.

Thrones does function on its own bye and large, but people often defend, comment, or criticize the series based on pulling information from the books or extra material in. Can't do that.

In the same vein, I like reading reviews from non-readers because it's only from the show's perspective. Had I read the books, perhaps I'd want to read the views of others who had sort of an inter-source mix of perspective as well.

Peasant, there are certainly a lot of details that can be soaked up in the AGOT world. Most of which would deepen enjoyment. Just by watching the series one time a person can likely not glean all of it (e.g. the gods as you mention). I don't think the "full" experience should be available for the first time because I think some parts of the "knowing everything" and the visceral experience of getting shown a story the first time are mutually exclusive. The show has to do enough to impart some of those intracacies though.

I'm not saying that the extras are required reading by any means, just that they convey a lot of world building that's otherwise lost in the adaptation because, for example, they can't have Tyrion segue into a 10-minute long soliloquy about the history of Casterly Rock or the geneology of House Lannister every time one of those issues is raised.

Don't take this the wrong way because I love your work (and REALLY loved Your book), but reading you these last couple of months I come away thinking that you believe "Girls" is Citizen Kane on TV and GoT is shit... I'm freakin confused. I think I'm gonna pass on this season's recaps. Don't want to deal with the negativity.

Relative to what most others think, yeah, it is. Sorry. And it's not even about the letter grade (which The Clicker didn't mention, so bringing it up is not particularly relevant). It's more about the overall tone of your review. I may have to pass on your recaps as well if I'm going to be subjected to weekly whining about the way the show chooses to do its storytelling. I just think you're obsessing over things that A) aren't going to change, B) are better than the alternatives, and C) frankly don't matter to me (you've got to get past the fact that we're never going to have a lot of Blackwater-esque episodes). And I've found that as a general rule, almost all the recaps written by book readers are better and more insightful than those written by non-readers (e.g. a reader would be much less likely to just forget that the Hound was afraid of fire, though there were plenty of non-readers who also remembered that detail). It's not even the non-readers fault, necessarily. The readers have a big advantage, after all. But it is what it is.

Relative to what most others think, yeah, it is. Sorry. And it's not even about the letter grade (which The Clicker didn't mention, so bringing it up is not particularly relevant). It's more about the overall tone of your review. I may have to pass on your recaps as well if I'm going to be subjected to weekly whining about the way the show chooses to do its storytelling. I just think you're obsessing over things that A) aren't going to change, B) are better than the alternatives, and C) frankly don't matter to me (you've got to get past the fact that we're never going to have a lot of Blackwater-esque episodes). And I've found that as a general rule, almost all the recaps written by book readers are better and more insightful than those written by non-readers (e.g. a reader would be much less likely to just forget that the Hound was afraid of fire, though there were plenty of non-readers who also remembered that detail). It's not even the non-readers fault, necessarily. The readers have a big advantage, after all. But it is what it is.

"What most others think" - what others? Sepinwall's take on the S3 premiere is pretty much in line with other major television critics (Another fairly representative, and similar, take on S3- Todd VanDerWeff.) Not "recappers". He's reviewing it as a television show, for tv viewers. It's a totally different thing from book fans recapping a repurposing their long-beloved book. There's no advantage or disadvantage either way - it's apples and oranges in terms of purpose, approach, content, and audience. I might take issue if Alan's analysis was a wild contrarian outlier among his peers (ala Armond White). It's not. Neither is his coverage of Girls. I think you're looking for content situated in a different context (knowledge of the books, and love of the books) - Alan situates his take in the context of similar prestige shows and his background as a professional critic. TL;DR: don't bash a perfectly worthy orange because you felt like having an apple.

I've been rewatching Season 2 (an episode every other day or so) in preparation for Season 3, and I quite like how they focus on so many characters at a time. I think part of it is done to show that so many things are happening simultaneously in this massive world.

It's obvious that this show would benefit from being 13 episodes rather than 10 though.

If you look at the chapter names of the book, then you'll see why they decided to do the show this way. There are 72 chapters in the first book, with 5-9 chapters per character per book. The book is just written that way. Of course, the book also allows people to absorb more information slowly.

Having read the books, I am amazed by the creators' ability to translate it to tv. The major concern for everyone is if Martin doesn't finish the last book until 2017 or beyond. I wonder if the tv show aspect will make him finish it sooner. (Unlikely.)

I didn't start reading the books until half way through season 2. Now I'm caught up and maybe half a season ahead depending on what happens. I think it will add to the enjoyment of the season, from seeing where the show diverges and how characters play out, to rounding out characters with more depth. Since the books jump around in similar fashion with the show, and the plot is so multilayered and the scenes so diverse, for me it adds to the drama. As Tim Goodman says in his THR piece, if we are frustrated to the point of always asking for more about individual characters after each show, and we haven't had enough, then that's not a bad thing, after all. BTW, what is nice is that just as Justified ends, GoT starts up again! Two totally different types of shows, but great TV, IMO!

It's interesting Alan that you're almost punished because of Blackwater. According to your review, had we never had that episode you wouldn't know what you'd be missing. I think it's a good sign when something is great but makes you feel that it could even greater (even if it's not feasible given the constraints of delivering it).

I liked Season 2 quite a bit but the end of Season 1 had a really nice balance for me of being sprawling but not bordering on feeling a little too busy. I think that's when this sort of mix was at its best.

For what it's worth, I agree but I can see why they almost have to split stories the way they do.

Presumably they can't afford to do more than 10 episodes per season (and the lack of budget was really apparent in many ways last season), so more time is not an option.

Despite occurring thousands of miles away from each other, many of the stories intertwine in some way, so they need to occur simultaneously. For example, King Robert ordering Dany's assassination attempt, or Robb finding out Theon sacked Winterfell.

Things like Dany's story this season would be so much more satisfying if they weren't told in micro snippets peppered throughout stories that are much more interesting than hers, but then how could you have Varys comment on the rumors of dragons in Quarth to Tyrion?

I wouldn't mind a bit if they found more air time by killing off Ros, though.

Peasant, I agree with you. All the threads are needed. But that doesn't disqualify someone from having qualms about how the story is delivered even though there may not be a clear indication of how to fix it.

I know there has to be a sense of simulatenous for the story to function. I think it's possible they can storytell around that though. And it doesn't have to be all or nothing. The show functions much better when its focus is even down to 2-3 story threads as opposed to 4-5.

Blackwater was great not just because of the great battle but because the episode felt like it could breathe with space by offering some of those character moments as well such as those with Cersei/Sansa (during the battle) and Tyrion/Varys (before the battle). They were nicely placed throughout the episode and it didn't feel rushed.

I had a similar reaction while watching the third season of Boardwalk Empire - I liked it, but wasn't entirely clicking.

Then I got to the episode near the end that's almost entirely about Nucky, and it was so great. And while I wouldn't want the show to be a single POV, I also felt like there was just too much going on. (I still have no idea what Van Alden's storyline contributed, beyond Michael Shannon being awesome.)

Kind of similar - I wasn't crazy about the 2nd season of Treme, because everything got so spread out. (Several characters barely set foot in New Orleans!) The 1st & 3rd seasons felt much more organically integrated, which was more satisfying both episodically and over the whole season.

I think your prescription is right-on, at least as someone else who also has not (and probably never will) read the books. Of course the people who know and love the books can follow along, but at some point you have to let the material meet the medium.

I liked Season One a lot, and some of that was because Ned Stark was in some small way a cohesive force. Season Two may have been necessarily scattered, but it also felt a bit arbitrary; why check over there now, why check over here next? (Sometimes, it was just inadequate filmmaking. At least come up with indelible ways to introduce characters. Stannis' appearance befuddled our living room (Had we met him before? Did we have to bother to remember him for the future?)) It was more chore than fun. A harder hand at restructuring the presentation could solve so much in terms of coherency and momentum.

'Lost' has already been brought up, here, and rotating amongst multiple storylines and backstories is one of the things that show did masterfully. It's a Desmond episode, it's a Hurley episode, it just feels like that could work so well here.